Legal Opinion
United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided December 13, 1993No. 92-1180PublishedCited by 1,083 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kennedy
The principal question presented is whether, in the absence of exigent circumstances, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the Government in a civil forfeiture case from seizing real property without first affording the owner notice and an opportunity to be heard. We hold that it does.
A second issue in the case concerns the timeliness of the forfeiture action. We hold that filing suit for forfeiture within the statute of limitations suffices to make the action timely, and that the cause should not be dismissed for failure to comply with certain other statutory directives…
2Cases cited41 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Graham v. ConnorSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
36 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,083 opinions
- Shirley Presley v. City of Charlottesville Rivanna Trails FoundationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2006
- Dusenbery v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- James Madison Limited, by Norman F. Hecht, Sr., Assignee v. Eugene A. Ludwig, Comptroller of the CurrencyCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1996
- Gilbert v. HomarSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Nielsen v. PreapSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
1,078 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.